Gulshan v. State

Vidhi JainCase Summary

Requirement of Section 65B Certificate in the interest of justice.

Gulshan v. State
(2019) 257 DLT 296 (DB)
In the High Court of Delhi
Crl.A. 834/2016
Before Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
Decided on January 17, 2019

Relevancy of the case: Requirement of Section 65B Certificate in the interest of justice.

Statutes & Provisions Involved

  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 2(t), 2(o))
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 365, 392, 394, 307, 186, 364-A)
  • The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 313, 374)
  • The Arms Act, 1959 (Section 27)
  • The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 65B, 106)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • Sumil, his wife Pooja, and daughters Naina and Neha were out in their car to buy some medicines.  While Sumil was away buying medicines, a boy threatened his wife to get out of the car and then drove away with his mother and two children. 
  • Subsequently, inside the car, he demanded all the currency they had. Upon finding that they had none, he pushed the old lady and one child out of the car. Moreover, the accused (appellant), Gulshan used the mobile phone of a stranger by telling him false stories and instead called Sumil asking for ransom money.
  • Consequently, the police found the car and arrested the appellant. Three chance prints were also found in the car out of which one chance print matched with that of the appellant. 
  • Subsequently,  the authorities compared the chance prints with electronically retrieved prints of the appellant, which according to him were not admissible without the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates 

  • The appellant’s counsel submitted that the prosecution intentionally planted the chance prints in the car. Moreover, the comparison of the chance prints with the electronically retrieved prints of the appellants was not admissible without the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
  • On the other hand, the assistant public prosecutor argued that the crime team inspected the alleged and lifted 3 chance prints which were forwarded to the Finger Print Bureau, one of which, matched with the thumb impression of the appellant. Hence, this evidently proved the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the alleged crime.

Opinion of the Bench 

  • The bench perused through Anvar v. Basheer and found that in the interest of justice, the Court can relax the requirement of the certificate under Section 65B. 
  • Thus, the bench found no ground in the appellant’s contention. 

Final Decision

  • Hence, the bench found that the prosecution established its case and dismissed the case.

To read this case summary in Hindi, click here. | इस केस सारांश को हिंदी में पढ़ने के लिए यहाँ क्लिक करें।

As per our guidelines, we have removed certain information that falls under the category of personally identifiable information (PII). Accordingly, the said guideline is available here.